The right tells the truth more, but the truth often goes against popular narratives so its listed as lies. J6 for example. The election. These are all things that the media likes to lie about, whereas the facts say something different.
Donât Mess With Texas is the most successful marketing campaign ever conceived. There are documentaries about it. QED.
Whats scary is that the nonsense weâre pushing is gonna end up in history books. Weâre gonna have kids writing entire reports about an insurrection that never happened.
The insurrection happened, but it wasnât 1/6. Probably an unpopular view. Thatâs why the Donât Mess With Texas thing is both funny and unfortunately true. We are too conditioned to believe what is spoon fed to us.
2 billion dollars or more during BLM riots. Sorry, âprotests.â Entire cities sacked, countless dead or wounded.
Exactly 1 person died on 1/6 as a direct result of the event, and she was shot by a cop.
(hey, thatâs a FAFO, so on topic)
Three were killed during the event. Ben Philips was killed with a grenade and the person that got trampled was killed. Killed when high on meth, sure, but definitely killed.
2 Likes
Take note, kids: if youâre right-wing, âStand your Groundâ involves deliberately putting yourself into a situation where you get to shoot a protester.
If youâre confused why:
âI do tend to repeat myself in proportion as the audience is listening. The basic idea with the parallel construction, which of course is a syntactic cliche, had occurred to me long before.â -the guy who actually made the post that is called Wilhoitâs Law.
Tell a lie enough times, in other words.
It doesnât if it was attributed to Frank Weinerholt of Taintgobble, WI, the principle is demonstrated time and again.
Of course, if you canât argue with the point being made, argue about who made it I guess.
Here, Iâll make it easier:
Or argue about arguing who made it, which seems to be what is going on, now. The doublespeak is strong.
Another quote from the same interview:
âI am a pure amateur. What I have taken advantage of is what so many, many, many, many other people have taken advantage of, which is today the total disintermediation of the public discourse.â
Liars gonna lie.
The point youâre trying to dodge is that conservative thought in word is about principles, but in application is about power. And the gap between the two is hypocrisy.
If a black man who posted about killing republican protesters drove over an hour to a protest with a gun and then killed a republican, heâd be in the express line on death row. Hypocrisy is the order of the day.
Frankly Iâm getting fed up with seeing smart people be ignorant of the interests their opinions actually serve, and in nearly every case Iâm losing the benefit of the doubt that theyâre actually ignorant of this, just mistakenly thinking theyâre also on that teamâwhich is even worse for their character.
Wilhoit talked about this, too. The redefinition of words to suit one side or the other. What you are calling conservatism does not represent what most conservatives (or Republicans, because there is a marked difference) actually feel. The same thing goes for liberalism and Democrats.
But, it makes a nice Twitter post, which is actually what he is being critical of, in his own creative way.
2 Likes
Youâre still deflecting from the point about hypocrisy and refusing to engage with it, Shakespeare. A rose by any other name, is still a group of conniving hypocritesâitâs just that these have chosen to call themselves âconservativeâ.
I wouldnât call them that, they call themselves that.
The preamble to the quote:
"There is no such thing as liberalism â or progressivism, etc.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Greshamâs Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely."
What a load of midwit horseshit.
Heâs the midwit you quoted.
See the post where I donât give a shit about the âwhoâ again, and how youâre still deflecting from the point.
Edit: posts.
1 Like
I presume you are joking, as this is otherwise a false and misleading generalization.
At least in the State where I reside (Florida), which is a State with around half the population over the age of 40, many of them Conservatives, most of them do not go to Protests, and try to physically avoid protests.
Stand your ground for them, usually means defending themselves in their homes, or in public, especially as their ability to leave, or do other physical things may not be equal to that of younger people.
And that meme about Wilhoitâs âlawâ seems like farcical made up nonsense.
Again the use of loaded words, or appeals to stereotypes remains thick, in the kind of post that you have just made.
I already called out my opinion that that there was probably no good reason for the shooting, except that one guy was going to shoot, and the other guy got off one quicker.
Why is there a good reason for a guy to be walking around downtown in a riot with a rifle, and not a good reason for a sworn defender of the country to be there also armed?